Page 1085 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 16 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
relations represents an important contribution to addressing these significant issues facing our society.
Despite these clear, positive benefits of the case, however, and the support of much of the community and the state and territory governments, the federal government has consistently indicated its desire to radically refigure the living wage case. The report to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, handed down this week, suggested a reduction in the minimum wage in order to stimulate job creation.
The Howard government’s submission to the living wage case has put pressure on the AIRC to delay the decision and incorporate greater consideration of economic factors in making the determination. While the AIRC has made provision for post-budget submissions to be made to the case, the overwhelming trend of submissions is consideration of economic factors. The emphasis at the moment is significantly on economic factors but incorporates basic principles of fairness. One can only assume federal government sympathy with the views of the BCA in advocating for an industrial relations system devoid of fairness and of pure privilege for productivity.
The Howard government has publicly discussed two options for changing the structure of determination of minimum wages. The first is to place responsibility for the determination of the minimum wage with a specialist body of the AIRC. The second is the government appointed panel, akin to the system of operation in the United Kingdom. The system currently in operation in Australia guarantees some fairness of outcome and allows submissions and consideration from worker and employer groups. The removal of the independent umpire from the process of minimum wage determination gives the federal government control—and their commitment to the wages and conditions of low-paid workers to date does not bode well for Canberra’s working families.
If the Howard government’s submission to the minimum wage case had been accepted by the AIRC since the government’s election in 1996, minimum wage workers would be more than $2,000 worse off every year. Yet, despite the increased wages through the minimum wage case every year, there has been an average of 2.4 per cent annual increase in productivity growth over the last 10 years. Future growth is forecast at three per cent and unemployment is statistically at a 28-year low. Company profits are at record levels. Economically, we are looking good. Whilst profits are at record levels, wages growth has been modest and the wages share of income has declined.
We are constantly reminded of the economic success of this federal government—and then hit with rejections of the very real need that low-wage workers live with. It is evident that, if this federal government had their way, minimum wage workers would be on a lot less, yet the proposal recently considered by cabinet puts the debate about the minimum wage case precisely on those terms. Federal shadow minister for industrial relations, Stephen Smith, described the proposal as a backdoor mechanism to slash the wages of Australia’s low-paid workers. Democrats employment spokesman, Andrew Murray, considers the proposal “a charge for lower wages for the poor”. Arguments that suggest that a living wage threatens the job prospects of the unemployed fail to recognise the emergent concern of the working poor. Poverty and unemployment are indeed closely linked, but the answer can never be in isolating and enforcing the living and working conditions of the working poor. In standing up for workers’ rights, and in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .